Hva er liberalismen? FAQ

[Sondring]

"The rich" already pay a lot more taxes than "the poor", and they don't seem like dribbling for paying more.

 

I din stat, så vil alle betale likt, eh?

 

Det blir fint for de fattige, du.

[Simon Aldra]

If anything, this is an excellent argument for paying taxes.

Det gjør det å betale den "frivillige" skatten de facto tvungent.

 

Vi har voldsmonopolet, du trenger ikke å betale oss for beskyttelse, men om du vil ha beskyttelse er det nok en god ide?`

[Marxisten]

Økonomi er alt annet enn en eksakt vitenskap, den er det ikke i dag, det var den ikke for to hundre år siden.

 

That's a foolish thing to say. It's like saying "physics is not what it was 200 years ago". Economic principles of are everlasting, even if socialist dumbasses succeed in diverting the masses from these simple truths.

[Marxisten]

"The rich" already pay a lot more taxes than "the poor", and they don't seem like dribbling for paying more.

 

I din stat, så vil alle betale likt, eh?

 

No, you pay what you want to pay. However, you'll have no incentives to pay more than others as long as the state reveices enough money.

[Marxisten]

If anything, this is an excellent argument for paying taxes.

Det gjør det å betale den "frivillige" skatten de facto tvungent.

 

If you want a government, people will have tot pay for it. This is not initiated force. Asserting that is like saying "buying milk is compulsory because if you don't pay you won't have it".

[Sondring]

No, you pay what you want to pay. However, you'll have no incentives to pay more than others as long as the state reveices enough money.

 

Men, hvis staten ikke får nok penger, så kommer mafiaen og tar meg.

 

Hvem bestemmer når staten har fått nok penger?

Prisen på beskyttelse går jo opp vet du....

[ole_marius]

Du glemmer den menneskelige faktor, den kan ødelegge hele din økonomiske forestilling. Mennesket er uforutsigbar. Ergo... Det er ingen garanti for at et total-liberaliserte samfunn vil fungere

[McFly]

"The rich" already pay a lot more taxes than "the poor", and they don't seem like dribbling for paying more.

 

Forskjellen er at idag er staten ansvarlig overfor velgerne, noe den ikke vil være i en libertariansk stat.

[Marxisten]

No, you pay what you want to pay. However, you'll have no incentives to pay more than others as long as the state reveices enough money.

 

Men, hvis staten ikke får nok penger, så kommer mafiaen og tar meg.

 

That's why you should pay taxes to a constitutional government that protects individual rights.

 

Hvem bestemmer når staten har fått nok penger?

Prisen på beskyttelse går jo opp vet du....

 

The government decides. If they charge too much, people won't pay, and they lose their jobs. If they don't deliver, people won't pay, and thhey lose their jobs. This is why taxes should be voluntary. To give the government incentives to serve the people. Today's society is about the people serving their governors. It should be the other way around.

Endret 15. februar 2010 av Marxisten

[Marxisten]

Du glemmer den menneskelige faktor, den kan ødelegge hele din økonomiske forestilling. Mennesket er uforutsigbar. Ergo... Det er ingen garanti for at et total-liberaliserte samfunn vil fungere

 

Straw man. That has never been an allegation of mine.

 

staten ansvarlig overfor velgerne, noe den ikke vil være i en libertariansk stat.

 

The state is accountable for the voters as a group, but not for each individual. That's why we need constitutional government.

[ole_marius]

That's why you should pay taxes to a constitutional government that protects individual rights.

 

Men skatt er umoralsk og kan sammenlignes med overgrep. Ergo.. Derfor skal man ikke betale skatt!

 

Straw man. That has never been an allegation of mine.

 

 

Kan du med hånden på hjertet si at din samfunnsmodell vil fungere slik du beskriver den? Hvilke garantier kan du stille opp med?

[Marxisten]

Men skatt er umoralsk og kan sammenlignes med overgrep. Ergo.. Derfor skal man ikke betale skatt!

 

That's an extreme misunderstanding of the philosophy of freedom. It is forced taxation that is immoral. All voluntary activity is moral.

 

Kan du med hånden på hjertet si at din samfunnsmodell vil fungere slik du beskriver den? Hvilke garantier kan du stille opp med?

 

None whatsoever. It will only last as long as most people value their freedom and act accordingly.

 

If people care more about equalization of incomes than equalization of rights, it's not gonna last. Equalization of incomes is likely to poison initiative and retard progress to the extent that the real incomes of everyone are lowered from what they otherwise would be. The fact that large incomes suffer more than small ones should not be comforting to those whose smaller incomes are further reduced as the result of a program supposed to benefit them.

Endret 15. februar 2010 av Marxisten

[herzeleid]

Så konklusjonen er at dette systemet ikke funker? Godt vi i allefall er enige om det da

[Marxisten]

Non sequitur

 

Troll?

 

Government is, by definition, a monopoly of force. With great agencies of force at their disposal, the potential ability of governments to violate the rights of the individual is accordingly great and indeed history teaches us that they have done so. This is why government MUST be backed voluntarily, and it must be a constitutional government based on individual rights.

Endret 15. februar 2010 av Marxisten

[ole_marius]

Hvorfor ikke bare fjerne hele staten til fordel for et fritt anarkistisk styre?

[Marxisten]

Hvorfor ikke bare fjerne hele staten til fordel for et fritt anarkistisk styre?

 

I think we need standard procedures for dealing with criminals. But it will have to be a voluntarily funded constitutional government based on individual rights.

 

Because all individuals have the same rights, and the government is nothing more than a collection of individuals, there are proper and improper government tasks. What determines what is proper and improper for governments to do are, in essence, the same principles which differentiate the proper from the improper actions of the individual. The "rights of a government," like the rights of any other association of men, can be morally no different than the rights of the men who comprise it. All that which is immoral for men acting individually is equally immoral for men acting in association. There is nothing a government can morally do, which individuals by themselves cannot morally do. The group is ethically no different from the individual.

 

Because theft is not OK among individuals, it is not OK that the government steals money from citizens. Consider the following situation: One man approaches a second and demands of him that he surrender a portion of his income, on the grounds that the claimant needs the money more and knows better how to spend it than does the second man. If the second man refuses to surrender his money, then the first man attempts to take it by force. If the second man continues to protest and resist, the first man then shoots him.

 

Now, who would call the first man anything other than a thief and murderer? Who could regard the second man as anything but an innocent victim? The first man is clearly immoral and the second is clearly blameless.

 

Now, let's suppose that instead of being one man, the would-be thief is a part of a larger gang, which calls itself "the Mafia." Now if the Mafia proceeds to rob the second man as did the lone criminal, would their actions be any the less criminal simply because there were five or ten of them instead of only one? The only rational answer is that their actions would not be any different, that robbery is robbery and murder is murder whether it is being committed by a single thief by himself, or by a thousand acting in concert.

 

Finally, let us say that our original thief is a member of a very large gang, that he in fact claims to be a representative of a group called "the fellowship of the people". Instead of calling himself a criminal, our thief calls himself a "tax collector," and instead of saying that he is taking money and property for himself, he claims that he is collecting it for "the poor."

 

Now, how is this "tax collector" any different from the lone criminal or a member of the Mafia? Like the criminal, the so-called "tax collector" is taking money or property which does not belong to him, for a purpose which his victim does not choose to voluntarily support. If the victim voluntarily supported the tax collector's cause, there would be no need for him to forcibly seize his money or property.

 

If the individual has an inalienable right to his own life, liberty, and property, then morally his life and property are his own to do with as he pleases. It is just as immoral for a government to attempt to tax his earnings, regulate his business, or draft his sons as it would be for some isolated individual acting on his own authority to do so. The association of men into a group called "government" does not free them from morality or sanction actions otherwise immoral.

 

In general, governments can not morally coerce, threaten, harass, intimidate, investigate, conscript, regulate, censor, compete with, tax, subsidize, insure, license, inspect, indoctrinate, spy on, or murder its citizens. In other words, whatever else it does, the government of a free society does not itself act as a criminal in the name of its citizens, or try to judge and live their lives for them.

 

What then are the functions left which government might conceivably engage in? Retaliatory force! This is what we will call a limited government.

Endret 15. februar 2010 av Marxisten

[S_J]

To spørsmål:

Finnes det liberalister som mener helsevesen og/eller skole skal finansieres av frivillig skatt?

 

Er det greit at jeg bygger en svær antenne på tomten min og sender ut

på alle frekvensene?

[ole_marius]

Fant bloggen du copy paster fra

 

 

I think we need standard procedures for dealing with criminals. But it will have to be a voluntarily funded constitutional government based on individual rights.

 

Because all individuals have the same rights, and the government is nothing more than a collection of individuals, there are proper and improper government tasks. What determines what is proper and improper for governments to do are, in essence, the same principles which differentiate the proper from the improper actions of the individual. The "rights of a government," like the rights of any other association of men, can be morally no different than the rights of the men who comprise it. All that which is immoral for men acting individually is equally immoral for men acting in association. There is nothing a government can morally do, which individuals by themselves cannot morally do. The group is ethically no different from the individual.

 

Because theft is not OK among individuals, it is not OK that the government steals money from citizens. Consider the following situation: One man approaches a second and demands of him that he surrender a portion of his income, on the grounds that the claimant needs the money more and knows better how to spend it than does the second man. If the second man refuses to surrender his money, then the first man attempts to take it by force. If the second man continues to protest and resist, the first man then shoots him.

 

Now, who would call the first man anything other than a thief and murderer? Who could regard the second man as anything but an innocent victim? The first man is clearly immoral and the second is clearly blameless.

 

Now, let's suppose that instead of being one man, the would-be thief is a part of a larger gang, which calls itself "the Mafia." Now if the Mafia proceeds to rob the second man as did the lone criminal, would their actions be any the less criminal simply because there were five or ten of them instead of only one? The only rational answer is that their actions would not be any different, that robbery is robbery and murder is murder whether it is being committed by a single thief by himself, or by a thousand acting in concert.

 

Finally, let us say that our original thief is a member of a very large gang, that he in fact claims to be a representative of a group called "the fellowship of the people". Instead of calling himself a criminal, our thief calls himself a "tax collector," and instead of saying that he is taking money and property for himself, he claims that he is collecting it for "the poor."

 

Now, how is this "tax collector" any different from the lone criminal or a member of the Mafia? Like the criminal, the so-called "tax collector" is taking money or property which does not belong to him, for a purpose which his victim does not choose to voluntarily support. If the victim voluntarily supported the tax collector's cause, there would be no need for him to forcibly seize his money or property.

 

If the individual has an inalienable right to his own life, liberty, and property, then morally his life and property are his own to do with as he pleases. It is just as immoral for a government to attempt to tax his earnings, regulate his business, or draft his sons as it would be for some isolated individual acting on his own authority to do so. The association of men into a group called "government" does not free them from morality or sanction actions otherwise immoral.

 

In general, governments can not morally coerce, threaten, harass, intimidate, investigate, conscript, regulate, censor, compete with, tax, subsidize, insure, license, inspect, indoctrinate, spy on, or murder its citizens. In other words, whatever else it does, the government of a free society does not itself act as a criminal in the name of its citizens, or try to judge and live their lives for them.

 

What then are the functions left which government might conceivably engage in? Retaliatory force! This is what we will call a limited government.

 

 

Fant bloggen du copy paster fra

Endret 15. februar 2010 av ole_marius

[herzeleid]

haha nice, tenke selv osv.

[ole_marius]

Jeg tenkte jeg skulle ta hele svaret i google translate siden jeg var lei av å lese engelsk. Stusset på hvorfor hans engelsk var guddommelig bra og søkte på google om han besto "plagiat kontrollen" og vips, så fant jeg ut hvorfor han var så god i engelsk

 

Men jeg tør vedde på at det meste han har "skrevet" på engelsker hentet fra andre blogger. Orker ikke å finne det ut selv

 

Men et råd til deg marxisten, din troverdighet sankt til et nytt lavmål. Skal du først argumentere så skriv med egne ord. Dog så er det greit å ha eksterne matriell å støtte seg på. men når du bruker hele sulamitten så funker det ei!